Table 1.
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
CBO ESTIMATE, EMERGENCY SPENDING................................................................. 5,893 5,695
Scorekeeping Differences:
Department of Agriculture:
Risk Management Agency: Federal crop insurance fund: Purchase
requirement............................................................................................................. -18 -14
OMB and CBO use different technical assumptions to calculate the effect of
this provision.
Commodity Credit Corporation: Mohair recourse loans.............................................. -2 -2
OMB and CBO use different technical assumptions to calculate the effect of
this provision.
Other Budget Authority Rounding and Technical Outlay Estimating Differences........ 1 135
--------- ---------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES........................................................................................... -19 119
OMB ESTIMATE, EMERGENCY SPENDING 1/ ............................................................ 5,874 5,814
1/ A portion of these emergency funds were contingent upon a Presidential
declaration of emergency. The President released the contingent emergency
funds on October 23, 1998.
CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................................ 13,692 14,071
Scorekeeping Differences:
Department of Agriculture:
Rural Utilities Service: Rural electrification and telephone loans,
negative subsidies................................................................................................... -3 -3
OMB estimates that there are negative subsidies for this program, which
charges fees and private market interest rates on its direct loans. CBO
estimates a zero subsidy for this program.
Page 1
Table 1. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Rural Business - Cooperative Service: Rural business and industry
direct loans, negative subsidies.............................................................................. -7 -7
OMB estimates that there are negative subsidies for this program, which
charges fees and private market interest rates on its direct loans. CBO
estimates a zero subsidy for this program.
Office of the Secretary.................................................................................................. -2 -2
The appropriation for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations includes a $2 million transfer to other USDA agencies, each of which
would receive less than $500 thousand. OMB scores the bill on a post-transfer
basis. CBO scores the bill on a pre-transfer basis.
Risk Management Agency: Federal crop insurance corporation fund
Prohibit 10 percent payment.................................................................................... 2 ---
Section 748 would prohibit payment of the 10 percent payment authorized by
the recently enacted agriculture research bill. CBO and OMB had different
baseline estimates and, therefore, score slightly different costs of this
provision.
Farm Service Agency: Commodity Credit Corporation fund: Computer
purchases................................................................................................................ 5 4
Section 756 would limit expenses for computer-related activities to $65 million,
the same as the budget estimate. CBO’s estimate was $70 million, creating a
$5 million savings.
Natural Resources Conservation Service: Wetlands reserve program...................... 13 5
Section 728 limits enrollment to 120,000 acres in FY 1999. OMB and CBO
use different baseline estimates. Therefore, the savings are different.
Page 2
Table 1. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Food and Nutrition Service: Food stamp program:
Discretionary programs........................................................................................... 9 9
Although the account is mandatory under the 1990 BEA, the bill funds several
activities that are controllable by the appropriations process. These activities
are either new to the account since the 1990 BEA was enacted or have been
expanded above the baseline levels that preceded the 1990 BEA and are
assumed in OMB’s mandatory baseline. OMB scores these activities as
discretionary. CBO scores the entire account as mandatory.
Studies and evaluations............................................................................................ 6 4
Bill language prohibits funding of studies and evaluations. CBO and OMB
score the savings from the baseline, but the baselines are different.
Food and Nutrition Service: State child nutrition programs......................................... 8 7
Although the account is mandatory under the 1990 BEA, the bill funds several
activities that are controllable by the appropriations process. These activities
are either new to the account since the 1990 BEA was enacted or have been
expanded above the baseline levels that preceded the 1990 BEA and are
assumed in OMB’s mandatory baseline. OMB scores these activities as
discretionary. CBO scores only the $10 million for Nutrition Education and
Training as discretionary costs.
Food and Nutrition Service: State child nutrition programs......................................... 16 11
CBO calculated savings to the school lunch program by using their February
baseline as updated by the national average minimum value of donated foods
for the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999 announced by the Food and
Nutrition Service on July 16, 1998. OMB calculated savings by using their
February baseline.
Studies and evaluations............................................................................................ -1 -2
Bill language prohibits funding of studies and evaluations. CBO and OMB
score the savings from the baseline, but the baselines are different.
Page 3
Table 1. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences:
Office of the Secretary: Prohibition on the use of Fund for Rural America.................. --- -26
OMB assumes a first year spend-out rate of 55 percent and CBO assumes a
first year spend-out rate of 11.7 percent, so the OMB estimate of the
discretionary savings of this prohibition is $26 million higher than CBO.
Food Safety and Inspection Service: Salaries and expenses..................................... --- -16
OMB assumes a first year spend-out rate of 96.0 percent and CBO assumes a
first year spend-out rate of 95.0 percent, resulting in $6 million more in the
OMB estimates. However, CBO assumes $22 million more in outlays from
prior year balances.
Farm Service Agency: Emergency conservation program......................................... --- -45
CBO assumes $45 million in outlays from prior year balances of appropriations
for disaster recovery. OMB assumes that these appropriations will be outlayed
in FY 1998.
Natural Resources Conservation Service: Watershed and flood
prevention operations.............................................................................................. --- -112
CBO assumes $112 million in outlays from prior year balances of emergency
supplemental appropriations. OMB assumes that these outlays will occur in
FY 1998.
Other Budget Authority Rounding and Technical Outlay Estimating
Differences................................................................................................................. -1 43
--------- ---------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES............................................................................. 45 -130
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING............................... 13,737 13,941
Page 4
Table 2.
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
CBO ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.................................. 386 357
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences................................................................. --- 2
OMB ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING,
INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY ENACTED REGULAR DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING............................................................................................................. 386 359
Adjustment to Exclude Second-Year Effect of Regular Discretionary Spending
Enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and
Rescissions Act.............................................................................................. --- 1
OMB scoring of this bill included the second-year effect of regular
discretionary spending provisions enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998
Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act. Scoring of P.L.
105-174 was transmitted to the Congress on 5/20/98. This adjustment
is made to avoid double-counting for BEA scoring purposes.
OMB ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.................................. 386 360
CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.................. 27,252 26,672
Scorekeeping Differences:
United States Information Agency:
East West Center................................................................................................ -1 -1
Budget authority and outlay differences are due to rounding.
Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs.................................................... 1 -10
Budget authority difference is due to rounding. OMB and CBO have
different estimates of outlays from new authority (+$4 million) and outlays
from prior-year balances (-$10 million).
Page 5
Table 2. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Judicial Branch:
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts: Salaries and expenses...................... -1 -1
Budget authority difference is due to rounding. OMB and CBO have
different estimates of outlays from new authority (+$4 million) and outlays
from prior-year balances (-$5 million).
Department of Commerce:
Patent and Trademark Office: Salaries and expenses....................................... 65 -12
Budget authority difference is due to the fact that OMB’s estimate of fee
receipts is lower than CBO’s. As a result, CBO’s scoring of the rescission
in the bill is from a lower level of spending authority in FY 1999, resulting in
more negative budget authority.
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (-$141
million) and outlays from prior-year balances (+$129 million).
Department of Health and Human Services:
Health Resources and Services Administration: Vaccine injury compensation
program Trust Fund............................................................................................. -1 -1
Budget authority and outlay differences are due to rounding.
Department of Justice:
Legal Activities and U.S. Marshals: United States Trustee System program..... -1 -1
OMB’s estimate of current year fees that, if collected, will be made
available for expenditure in the budget year is $1 million higher than
CBO’s. OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new
authority (+$19 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$20 million
Effect of section 126............................................................................................ -1 ---
Section 126 of the Act directs the Department to make certain $20 million
in reductions pursuant to a chart on Year 2000 funding provided to
Congress. CBO reduced the Department total by $20 million; OMB made
the reductions specified on the chart. Difference is due to rounding.
Page 6
Table 2. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Small Business Administration:
Business loan program account.......................................................................... -3 3
OMB estimates that $1 million of the $4 million in proceeds from the sale
of stocks will be available to fund new loans, while CBO estimates that the
full $4 million will be available. The difference is due to differing SBIC
subsidy rates.
Securities and Exchange Commission:
Salaries and expenses........................................................................................ 27 16
OMB’s estimate of current year fee receipts that, if collected, will be made
available for expenditure in the budget year is $27 million higher than
CBO’s. OMB and CBO also have different estimates of outlays from new
authority (+$54 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$38 million).
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences:
Department of Commerce:
Economic Development Administration: Economic development assistance pr --- 23
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from prior-year authority.
Judicial Branch:
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and other Judicial Services: Salaries and e --- 24
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from prior-year
authority.
Department of Justice:
DEA: Salaries and expenses.............................................................................. --- -92
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority
(-$91 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$1 million).
Page 7
Table 2. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Federal Prison System: Buildings and facilities.................................................. --- 300
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (-$8
million) and outlays from prior-year authority (+$308 million).
General Administration: Counter-terrorism fund.................................................. --- 69
CBO assumes that the funds provided for protection against chemical and
biological weapons will be transferred to the Office of Justice programs, and
will be spent out at a 22 percent rate. OMB maintains that the appropriations
language, as it is drafted, does not imply a permissive transfer, and must be
spent out at the counter-terrorism fund rate of 75 percent.
FBI: Salaries and expenses................................................................................ --- -284
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (-$122
million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$162 million).
Office of Justice Programs: State and local law enforcement assistance.......... --- 162
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from prior-year authority.
Office of Justice Programs: Juvenile crime control and prevention programs... --- 63
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (+$29
million) and outlays from prior-year authority (+$34 million).
Department of Transportation:
Maritime Administration: Vessel operations revolving fund................................ --- -72
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority (-$101
million) and outlays from prior-year authority (+$29 million).
Other Budget Authority Rounding and Technical Outlay Estimating
Differences............................................................................................... --- 25
---------- ----------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES..................................................................................... 85 211
Page 8
Table 2. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING,
INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY ENACTED REGULAR DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING........................................................................................................... 27,337 26,883
Adjustment to Exclude Second-Year Effect of Regular Discretionary Spending
Enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and
Rescissions Act.................................................................................................. --- -1
OMB scoring of this bill included the second-year effect of regular
discretionary spending provisions enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998
Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act. Scoring of P.L.
105-174 was transmitted to the Congress on 5/20/98. This adjustment
is made to avoid double-counting for BEA scoring purposes.
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING...................... 27,337 26,882
CBO ESTIMATE, VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION................................................... 5,510 4,683
Scorekeeping Differences:
CBO Scorekeeping Rounding Plug, Crime......................................................... -1 ---
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences:
Department of Justice:
FBI: Salaries and expenses................................................................................ --- -28
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority
(+$21 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$49 million).
DEA: Salaries and expenses.............................................................................. --- -20
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority
(+$20 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$40 million).
Page 9
Table 2. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Immigration and Naturalization Service: Salaries and expenses --- 53
OMB and CBO have different estimates of outlays from new authority
(+$152 million) and outlays from prior-year authority (-$99 million).
Miscellaneous outlay estimating differences....................................................... --- -4
--------- ---------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES................................................................................... -1 1
OMB ESTIMATE, VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION................................................... 5,509 4,684
Page 10
Table 3.
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................ 491 490
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences:
District of Columbia Offender Supervision Defender and Court Services Agency:
Salaries and expenses............................................................................... --- -9
CBO uses a first-year spendout rate of 95 percent; OMB uses a
first-year spendout rate of 80 percent for this new account.
Department of the Interior:
National Park Service:
Operation of the national park system................................................... --- -2
CBO and OMB have different estimates of outlays from prior-year
balances.
Other:
Environmental Study at the Lorton Correctional Complex.......................... 4 4
CBO inadvertently did not score additional funding for an
environmental study at the Lorton Correctional Complex which
was included in the enrolled bill.
-------- --------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES.......................................................................... 4 -7
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................ 495 483
Page 11
Table 4.
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING,
EXCLUDING IMF FUNDING.................................................................................. 13,365 12,686
Scorekeeping Differences:
Multilateral Assistance:
International organizations and programs............................................................. 105 95
CBO estimates of BA are $102 million below OMB estimates. OMB
shows $105 million made available to the United Nations Children’s
Fund as a transfer from the Child Survival and Disease Programs account.
Agency For International Development:
Child survival and disease programs..................................................................... -105 -30
CBO estimates of BA are $105 million above OMB estimates. OMB
shows $105 million made available to the United Nations Children’s
Fund as a transfer to the International Organizations and Programs
(IO&P) account, CBO does not. CBO estimates of outlays from new
authority are $7 million above OMB estimates and CBO outlays prior
are $37 million above OMB differences.
Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union.............. --- -207
CBO outlays new are $86 million above OMB estimates, while CBO
outlays from prior year authority are $121 million above OMB estimates.
CBO assumes no transfers to other accounts because there
is no appropriations language in the bill for transfers. OMB scoring
is based on the historical pattern of transfers in the account. CBO also
assumes lower prior year outlays in FY 1998, resulting in higher
estimates for outlays prior in 1999.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC):
OPIC program account.......................................................................................... -1 ---
CBO estimates of BA are $1 million above OMB estimates due to
rounding differences.
Page 12
Table 4. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences:
Department of State:
Migration and Refugee Assistance........................................................................ --- 4
Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays new are $78 million
above OMB estimates, and CBO outlay prior are $82 million below OMB
estimates.
International Security Assistance:
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund............................................................... --- 7
Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays prior are $7 million below
OMB estimates.
Foreign military financing program........................................................................ --- 30
Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays prior are $29 million
below OMB estimates. CBO estimates of outlays from new authority are
$1 million below OMB estimates.
Foreign military financing loan program account................................................... --- -31
Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays prior are $30 million
above OMB estimates. CBO estimates of outlays from new authority are
$1 million above OMB estimates.
Multilateral Assistance:
Debt restructuring.................................................................................................. --- 17
Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays new are $2 million below
OMB estimates, and CBO outlays prior are $15 million below OMB
estimates.
Page 13
Table 4. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Agency for International Development:
Sustainable development assistance program...................................................... --- -39
Due to outlay rate differences, CBO estimates for outlays prior are $39
million above OMB estimates.
Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States............................................ --- -99
CBO outlays new are $8 million above OMB estimates, while CBO
outlays from prior year authority are $91 million above OMB estimates.
CBO assumes lower prior year outlays in FY 1998 than OMB, resulting
in higher CBO estimates for outlays from prior year balances in FY 1999.
International disaster assistance........................................................................... --- -20
Due to spend-out rate differences, CBO outlays prior are $20 million
above OMB estimates.
Other Budget Authority and Technical Outlay Estimating Differences....................... 4 174
---------- ----------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES......................................................................................... 3 -99
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING,
EXCLUDING IMF FUNDING.................................................................................. 13,368 12,587
CBO AND OMB ESTIMATES - IMF FUNDING:
IMF: New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB)................................................................ 3,361 ---
IMF: Increase in the U.S. Quota................................................................................ 14,500 ---
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING,
INCLUDING IMF NAB AND U.S. QUOTA.............................................................. 31,229 12,587
Page 14
Table 5.
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
CBO ESTIMATE,
CONTINGENT EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS..................................... 102 15
OMB ESTIMATE,
CONTINGENT EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS..................................... 102 1/
1/ OMB will estimate outlays when the contingent funds are released.
CBO ESTIMATE,
NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING ¹ ...................................... 13,927 14,299
Scorekeeping Differences:
Department of Energy:
Energy Programs:
Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves.................................................. -3 -1
CBO assumes higher receipt estimates for this account than does
OMB.
Department of Interior:
Royalties on Outer Continental Shelf lands.............................................. 43 43
Sec. 130 of the bill places an 8 month moratorium on the issuance
of Federal and Indian oil evaluation rules. CBO does not score a
cost for this provision. Consistent with its baseline assumptions,
OMB assumes a cost of $43 million.
Page 15
Table 5. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences:
Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
Wildland fire management...................................................................... --- -67
CBO assumes the use of contingency funds appropriated in prior
years before the use of new authority. Therefore, CBO estimates
lower outlays from new authority ($265 million difference) and
higher outlays from prior-year sources ($347 million difference)
than does OMB.
Department of the Interior:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Construction............................................................................................ --- -40
CBO assumes $38 million more in outlays from prior-year
balances than does OMB.
National Park Service:
Operation of the national park system.................................................... --- 58
CBO estimates higher outlays from new authority ($40 million
difference) and lower outlays from prior-year balances ($98 million
difference) than does OMB.
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Operation of Indian programs................................................................. --- 21
CBO estimates lower outlays from new authority ($68 million
difference) and higher outlays from prior-year balances ($47
million difference) than does OMB.
Construction............................................................................................ --- -21
CBO estimates lower outlays from prior-year balances and from
new authority than does OMB.
Page 16
Table 5. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Departmental Management:
Priority Federal land acquisitions and exchanges................................... --- -46
CBO assumes $46 million more in outlays from prior-year
balances than does OMB.
Minerals Management Service................................................................. --- -33
CBO estimates lower outlays from new authority ($20 million
difference) and higher outlays from prior-year balances ($53
million difference) than does OMB.
Other technical outlay estimating differences............................................. --- 48
Budget Authority Rounding Difference....................................................... -4 ---
------ ------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES........................................................................... 36 -38
------ ------
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, 13,963 14,261
Page 17
Table 6.
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
CBO ESTIMATE, CONTINGENT EMERGENCY
APPROPRIATIONS........................................................................................... 517 162
OMB ESTIMATE, CONTINGENT EMERGENCY
APPROPRIATIONS........................................................................................... 517 1/
1/ OMB will estimate outlays when the contingent funds are released.
CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING,
EXCLUDING VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION.................................................. 83,131 82,704
Scorekeeping Adjustments:
Special Education.............................................................................................. --- -215
The House and Senate Budget Committees have directed CBO to
include in the bill scoring an outlay plug of $215 million for the Title I
program. This adjustment lowers CBO’s estimates to be consistent with
OMB’s.
CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, EXCLUDING
VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION (Including Adjustment Listed Above)........ 83,131 82,489
Scorekeeping Adjustments:
Department of Education:
America Reads Challenge................................................................................. -210 -10
OMB scores a transfer of funds from America Reads Challenge to
Special Education. The FY 1998 Labor/HHS/Education bill provided for a
transfer of an FY 1999 advance appropriation to Special Education if the
America Reads Challenge was not authorized by July 1, 1999. CBO
does not score this transfer.
Special Education.............................................................................................. 210 11
OMB scores a transfer of funds from America Reads Challenge to
Special Education. The FY 1998 Labor/HHS/Education bill provided for a
transfer of an FY 1999 advance appropriation to Special Education if the
America Reads Challenge was not authorized by July 1, 1999. CBO
does not score this transfer.
Rehabilitative Services and Disability Research............................................... -30 -29
This account is mandatory under the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA).
CBO scores the "Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with
Disabilities" program as discretionary. CBO reclassified this program
when it was reauthorized. CBO is treating this as a new discretionary
program not classified as mandatory under the BEA. OMB continues to
score this account as mandatory.
Page 18
Table 6. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Department of Health and Human Services:
Refugee and Entrant Assistance....................................................................... 20 10
OMB scores a reappropriation of $20 million in unexpended balances to
this account. CBO assumes there are no funds available for
reappropriation.
Social Services Block Grant.............................................................................. -81 -263
OMB scores a rescission of $81 million to this account for a rescission of
mandatory FY 1998 funds. The FY 1998 funding level was increased
from the FY 1998 Labor/HHS/Education level in TEA-21. CBO did not
score an increase to SSBG in TEA-21, and does not score the rescission
to this account in the FY 1999 Act.
General Departmental Management................................................................. -8 -78
CBO inadvertently scored $218 million for this account -- the amount
cited in Report language; OMB scored $210 million, consistent with bill
language. OMB and CBO differ in first-year outlay rate estimates and
have small differences in estimates of prior year outlays.
Department of Labor:
Federal Unemployment Benefits Administration............................................... -38 -31
Division J of the act contains a nine month extension of the authorization
for the mandatory NAFTA-Trade Adjustment Assistance program. The
discretionary section of the act contains a full-year appropriation for this
appropriated entitlement. CBO scored the full 12 months as
discretionary ($44 million); OMB scored only three months as
discretionary ($6 million).
Social Security Administration:
Supplemental Security Income.......................................................................... 30 -39
OMB scores funds enacted in excess of $7 million for the "Research and
Demonstration" portion of the SSI account as discretionary because
spending for this account is controllable through the appropriations
process. CBO scores the entire "Research and Demonstration" portion
as mandatory.
Page 19
Table 6. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Railroad Retirement Board:
Federal Windfall Subsidy................................................................................... 11 11
CBO does not score as discretionary an estimated $11 million in
anticipated taxes on benefits from discretionary appropriations that are
credited to this account pursuant to section 224(c)(1)(B) of P.L. 98-76.
CBO scores this as mandatory.
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences:
Department of Education:
Education for the Disadvantaged...................................................................... --- -245
CBO scores first-year outlays of $1.4 billion to this account; OMB scores
first-year outlays of $1.1 billion to this account. OMB and CBO also have
small differences in prior-year outlay estimates.
School Improvement Programs......................................................................... --- -22
OMB and CBO have small differences in estimates of prior-year
outlays.
Student Financial Assistance............................................................................ --- -610
CBO scores prior-year outlays of $7.5 billion to this account; OMB
scores prior-year outlays of $7.0 billion to this account. OMB and CBO
also assume different first-year outlay rates for this account.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement........................................... --- 49
CBO scores prior-year outlays of $290 million to this account; OMB
scores prior-year outlays of $365 million. There are also small
differences in the first-year outlay rate between CBO and OMB.
Page 20
Table 6. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Department of Health and Human Services:
Centers for Disease Control.............................................................................. --- -33
OMB and CBO have small differences in estimates of first-year outlays
and in estimates of prior-year outlays.
Department of Labor:
Employment and Training Administration:
Training and Employment Services................................................................... --- -180
OMB and CBO differ in prior-year outlay estimates. OMB scores $4.1
billion in prior-year outlays to this account; CBO scores $4.2 billion in
prior-year outlays to this account. OMB and CBO also differ in first-year
outlay estimates.
Welfare-to-Work Jobs....................................................................................... --- 57
OMB and CBO differ in outlay estimates for this discretionary reduction to
a mandatory account.
Unemployment Trust Fund................................................................................ --- 63
OMB and CBO assume different outlay estimates on the spending of
Year 2000 computer conversion. OMB and CBO also have differences in
estimates of prior-year outlays.
Budget Authority Rounding and Miscellaneous Technical Outlay Estimating
Differences........................................................................................................ -3 -298
------------ ------------
TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS....................................................................................... -99 -1,637
Page 21
Table 6. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING,
INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY ENACTED REGULAR DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING....................................................................................................... 83,032 80,852
Adjustment to Exclude Second-Year Effect of Regular Discretionary Spending
Enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and
Rescissions Act............................................................................................ --- -5
OMB scoring of this bill included the second-year effect of regular
discretionary spending provisions enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY
1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act. Scoring of
P.L. 105-174 was transmitted to the Congress on 5/20/98. This
adjustment is made to avoid double-counting for BEA scoring
purposes.
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................ 83,032 80,847
CBO ESTIMATE,
VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING................................................... 156 139
Technical outlay estimating differences................................................................. --- -1
OMB ESTIMATE,
VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING ................................................. 156 138
Page 22
Table 7.
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
CBO ESTIMATE,
DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................................................. 300 300
OMB ESTIMATE,
DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING................................................. 300 300
CBO ESTIMATE,
NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING....................................... 11,620 13,400
Scorekeeping Differences:
Department of Transportation:
Federal Aviation Administration:
National Civil Aviation Review Commission -
Rescission (Sec. 337)..................................................................... 1 ---
CBO scores a $1 million rescission for this account. OMB scores
zero consistent with OMB’s assumption that these funds are not
available to be rescinded.
Federal Transit Administration:
Access to Jobs Program........................................................................ 25 1
The bill provides $75 million for this program, $25 million above
the level guaranteed in the TEA-21 legislation under the Transit
guarantee. OMB scores the excess $25 million to non-defense
discretionary.
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences:
Coast Guard:
Acquisition, construction and improvements.......................................... --- -85
Differences due to differences in prior year outlays (-$81 M) and
new outlays (-$4 M).
Page 23
Table 7. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations.............................................................................................. --- -64
Differences due to differences in prior year outlays (-$64 M).
Other Budget Authority and Technical Outlay Estimating Differences....... -5 50
--------- ---------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES.............................................................................. 21 -98
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING,
INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY ENACTED REGULAR DISCRETIONARY ----------- -----------
SPENDING..................................................................................................... 11,641 13,302
Adjustment to Exclude Second-Year Effect of Regular Discretionary Spending
Enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and
Rescissions Act.......................................................................................... --- -9
OMB scoring of this bill included the second-year effect of regular
discretionary spending provisions enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY
1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act. Scoring
of P.L. 105-174 was transmitted to the Congress on 5/20/98. This
adjustment is made to avoid double-counting for BEA scoring
purposes.
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.............. 11,641 13,293
MEMORANDUM:
Obligation Limitation, OMB Scoring ...................................................... 1,950
Obligation Limitation, CBO Scoring ...................................................... 1,950
Page 24
Table 7. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
CBO ESTIMATE,
HIGHWAY CATEGORY SPENDING.......................................................... --- 21,885
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences:
Federal-aid highways (including prior year outlays for Appalachian development
highway system):
Outlays from new authority........................................................... --- 18
Outlays from prior-year authority.................................................. --- -445
Other........................................................................................................... --- 4
--------- ---------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES.............................................................................. --- -423
--------- ---------
OMB ESTIMATE,
HIGHWAY CATEGORY SPENDING.......................................................... --- 21,462
MEMORANDUM:
Obligation Limitation, OMB Scoring ...................................................... 25,883
Obligation Limitation, CBO Scoring ...................................................... 25,883
CBO ESTIMATE,
MASS TRANSIT CATEGORY SPENDING................................................ 1,138 4,404
Scorekeeping Differences:
Federal Transit Administration:
Access to Jobs Program........................................................................ -25 -1
The bill provides $75 million for this program, $25 million above
the level guaranteed in the TEA-21 legislation to be funded under
the Transit guarantee. OMB scores the excess $25 million to
non-defense discretionary.
Page 25
Table 7. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences:
Federal Transit Administration:
Transit planning and research ............................................................ --- -68
Formula programs/Formula grants/Trust Fund share of expenses........ --- -61
Major capital investments....................................................................... --- -194
WMATA.................................................................................................. --- -42
Other....................................................................................................... --- -96
--------- ---------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES.............................................................................. -25 -462
OMB ESTIMATE, --------- ---------
MASS TRANSIT CATEGORY SPENDING................................................ 1,113 3,942
MEMORANDUM:
Obligation Limitation, OMB Scoring ...................................................... 4,252
Obligation Limitation, CBO Scoring ...................................................... 4,252
Page 26
Table 8.
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
CBO ESTIMATE,
NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING......................................................... 13,311 12,429
Technical Outlay Estimating Differences:
Department of the Treasury:
Internal Revenue Service:
Processing, assistance, and management................................................................ --- 122
CBO uses a first-year spendout rate of 88 percent while OMB
uses a first-year spendout rate of 91 percent; this results in a
difference of $103 million. OMB estimates higher outlays from
prior year balances than does CBO; this results in a difference of
$19 million.
General Services Administration:
Real Property Activities:
Federal buildings fund................................................................................................. --- 55
CBO estimates different outlays new (resulting in a $260 million
difference) and different outlays from prior year balances (resulting
in a difference of $205 million) than does OMB.
Federal Drug Control Programs:
Federal Drug Control Programs:
Special forfeiture fund................................................................................................. --- 34
CBO uses a first-year spendout rate of 25 percent while OMB
uses a first-year spendout rate of 60 percent; this results in a
difference of $75 million. CBO estimates higher outlays from prior
year balances than does OMB; this results in a difference of $41
million.
Budget Authority Rounding Difference........................................................................... -1 ---
Page 27
Table 8. (cont’d)
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Programs Normally Funded Under the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
Other technical outlay estimating differences................................................................. --- -7
---------- ----------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES.............................................................................................. -1 204
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING,
INCLUDING PREVIOUSLY ENACTED REGULAR DISCRETIONARY ---------- ----------
SPENDING.............................................................................................................. 13,310 12,633
Adjustment to Exclude Second-Year Effect of Regular Discretionary Spending
Enacted in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and
Rescissions Act..................................................................................................... --- -4
j g g
purposes.
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING......................... 13,310 12,629
CBO ESTIMATE,
VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING............................................................... 132 129
Technical outlay estimating differences:........................................................................ --- -5
OMB ESTIMATE,
VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING............................................................... 132 124
Page 28
Table 9.
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for All Other Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
CBO ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY.................................................. -65 -49
OMB ESTIMATE, DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY................................................. -65 -49
CBO ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY......................................... -2,005 -2,021
Scorekeeping Differences:
District of Columbia Federal Pension Provision.................................................. -14 -14
The Act provides for the sale of DC pension assets. CBO scored
savings of $2,400 million for this provision; OMB scored savings of
$2,414 million.
Repeal of GSE Default Loss Protection Provision.............................................. -41 -41
The Act repeals a provision that was included in the FY 1999 VA/HUD
appropriations bill, which would have relaxed restrictions on Freddie
Mac’s ability to buy mortgage with low down payments. Both CBO and
OMB projected a loss of revenue from increased use of mortgage
interest deduction as a result of the provision contained in the VA/HUD
bill. CBO scored the projected revenue loss as mandatory ($4 million in
FY 1999 and a total of $215 million through FY 2003. OMB scored the
entire loss ($41 million) as discretionary.
Technical outlay estimating differences.............................................................. --- -10
--------- ---------
Total, Differences.......................................................................................... -55 -65
OMB ESTIMATE, NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY........................................ -2,060 -2,086
MEMORANDUM: Mandatory Offsets Included Above:
District of Columbia Federal Pension Provision:
CBO Scoring............................................................................................... -2,400 -2,400
OMB Scoring.............................................................................................. -2,414 -2,414
Transportation Department: Federal Transit Administration: Rescission
of Mandatory Contract Authority:
CBO Scoring............................................................................................... -392 ---
OMB Scoring.............................................................................................. -392 ---
Page 29
Table 10.
Estimates Contained in P.L. 105-277 for Emergency Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA OL
CBO ESTIMATE, REGULAR EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS.................. 3,907 1,644
Scorekeeping Differences:
Defense Department:
Overseas contingency operations transfer fund................................................ --- 481
OMB estimates that outlays associated with the $1.9 billion provided for
Bosnia/Southwast Asia are higher ($1,450 million) than does CBO
($969 million).
State Department:
Diplomatic and consular affairs...................................................................... --- 238
OMB estimates that outlays associated with the $748 million provided
for this account are higher ($397 million) than does CBO ($159 million).
Other Technical Outlay Estimating Differences................................................ --- -34
--------- ---------
TOTAL DIFFERENCES.................................................................................. --- 685
OMB ESTIMATE, REGULAR EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS.................. 3,907 2,329
CBO ESTIMATE, CONTINGENT EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS............ 11,025 5,704
Budget Authority Rounding Difference.............................................................. -2 ---
OMB ESTIMATE, CONTINGENT EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS........... 11,023 1/
1 OMB will estimate outlays when the contingent funds are released.
Page 30
Table 11.
ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA Outlays
NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY, EXCLUDING
VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING
Non-Defense Discretionary, Excluding Violent Crime
Reduction spending limits...................................................................................... 273,984 265,938 1, 3
Amount previously enacted...................................................................................... 81,138 91,330 2
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Agriculture and Rural Development
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ 13,737 13,941
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act........................................................................... 27,337 26,882
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act............ 495 483
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act............. 31,229 12,587
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ 13,963 14,261
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act................................... 83,032 80,847
Page 31
Table 11. (cont’d)
ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA Outlays
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ 11,641 13,293
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ 13,310 12,629
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for
All Other Programs, Excluding Mandatory Offsets....................................... 746 328
Total enacted, Non-Defense Discretionary, Excluding Violent
Crime Reduction spending, Excluding Mandatory Offsets.................................... 276,628 266,581
Mandatory Offsets Included in P.L. 105-277......................................................... -2,806 -2,414
Total enacted, Non-Defense Discretionary, Excluding Violent
Crime Reduction spending, Including Mandatory Offsets...................................... 273,822 264,167
Appropriations over/under (-)
spending limits, EXCLUDING mandatory offsets.......................................... 2,644 643
Appropriations over/under (-)
spending limits, INCLUDING mandatory offsets........................................... -162 -1,771
VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION SPENDING
Violent Crime Reduction spending limits................................................................. 5,800 4,953 1
Amount previously enacted...................................................................................... --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Agriculture and Rural Development
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Page 32
Table 11. (cont’d)
ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA Outlays
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act........................................................................... 5,509 4,684
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act............ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act............. --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act................................... 156 138
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ 132 124
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for
All Other Programs........................................................................................... --- ---
Total enacted, Violent Crime Reduction spending................................................... 5,797 4,946
Appropriations over/under (-)
spending limits.................................................................................................. -3 -7
Page 33
Table 11. (cont’d)
ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA Outlays
DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Defense Discretionary spending limits..................................................................... 271,570 267,210 1
Amount previously enacted...................................................................................... 270,943 265,303 2
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Agriculture and Rural Development
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act........................................................................... 386 360
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act............ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act............. --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act................................... --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ 300 300
Page 34
Table 11. (cont’d)
ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA Outlays
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for
All Other Programs........................................................................................... -65 -49
Total enacted, Defense Discretionary spending...................................................... 271,564 265,914
Appropriations over/under (-)
spending limits.................................................................................................. -6 -1,296
HIGHWAY CATEGORY SPENDING
Highway Category spending limits........................................................................... --- 21,977 1
Amount previously enacted...................................................................................... --- 92 2
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Agriculture and Rural Development
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act........................................................................... --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act............ --- ---
Page 35
Table 11. (cont’d)
ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA Outlays
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act............. --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act................................... --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- 21,462
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for
All Other Programs........................................................................................... --- ---
Total enacted, Highway Category spending............................................................ --- 21,554
Appropriations over/under (-)
spending limits.................................................................................................. --- -423
Page 36
Table 11. (cont’d)
ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA Outlays
MASS TRANSIT CATEGORY SPENDING
Mass Transit Category spending limits.................................................................... --- 4,401 1
Amount previously enacted...................................................................................... --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Agriculture and Rural Development
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Commerce, Justice, State and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act........................................................................... --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act............ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act............. --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act................................... --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- 3,942
Page 37
Table 11. (cont’d)
ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1998
(in millions of dollars)
FY 1999
BA Outlays
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for Programs
Normally Funded under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act............................................................................................ --- ---
Amount provided in P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 for
All Other Programs........................................................................................... --- ---
Total enacted, Mass Transit Category spending..................................................... --- 3,942
Appropriations over/under (-)
spending limits.................................................................................................. --- -459
NOTES
1 FY 1999 limits are the limits included in the Sequestration Update Report that was transmitted to the
Congress on August 26, 1998. They include: enacted emergency appropriations, released contingent
emergency appropriations, and other adjustments permitted under the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of
1997 as of the release of the August Sequestration Update Report. The spending limits will change to
include additional adjustments permitted by the BEA when OMB submits its End-of-Session Update
Report. (NOTE: Neither the scoring of the individual appropriations bills or the discretionary spending
caps have been adjusted for emergency spending provided in P.L. 105-277.)
2 Includes the second-year effect of both emergency spending and regular discretionary spending enacted
in P.L. 105-174, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act.
3The FY 1999 Non-defense Discretionary Cap has been adjusted upward by the following amounts for
comparability purposes to reflect scoring of provisions that would result in upward cap adjustments:
Foreign Operations - MDB Arrears.................................................................. 539 39
Labor/HHS/Ed - Continuing Disability Reviews................................................ 355 327
Labor/HHS/Ed - Adoption Incentive Payments................................................ 20 2
Treasury/General Government - Earned Income
Tax Compliance Initiative (EITC)................................................................ 143 143
Commerce/Justice/State - Arrears................................................................... 475 475
IMF: New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB)...................................................... 3,361 ---
IMF: Increase in the U.S. Quota...................................................................... 14,500 ---
------- -------
Total......................................................................... 19,393 986
Spending caps will be adjusted upward officially for BEA purposes in OMB’s End-of-Session Report
for these adjustments and for emergency appropriations that have been provided and/or contingent
appropriations that have been released since the August Update Report.
Page 38
TABLE 12
OMB AND CBO SCORING OF PAYGO PROVISIONS IN OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL
(In millions of dollars)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999-03
OMB SCORING:
Change in outlays:
Medicare provisions........................................ 20 510 480 -110 -190 710
Persian Gulf War Veterans payments............ 0 0 14 159 329 502
TVA debt refinancing...................................... 94 144 156 158 138 690
Other outlay provisions 1/............................. -45 -36 -9 88 53 51
Subtotal, outlays.......................................... 69 618 641 295 330 1,953
Change in receipts 2/:
Tax and trade extensions................................ -2,452 -1,376 -433 -238 -151 -4,650
Revenue offsets:
Liquidating dists. of RICs and REITs.......... 2,692 3,185 2,732 2,853 3,532 14,994
Other revenue offsets................................. 130 160 165 171 176 802
Special rule-cash options for qual. prizes....... 220 1,459 160 -241 -238 1,360
Tax provisions relating to farmers.................. -170 -205 -227 -223 -199 -1,024
Other tax provisions........................................ -601 275 -250 -909 -396 -1,881
Subtotal, paygo receipts.......................... -181 3,498 2,147 1,413 2,724 9,601
OMB Net PAYGO impact 3/............................... 250 -2,880 -1,506 -1,118 -2,394 -7,648
Memorandum:
Change in off-budget receipts......................... 0 -2 -28 -36 -37 -103
CBO SCORING:
Change in outlays:
Medicare provisions........................................ 150 2,000 -1,100 -50 -200 800
Persian Gulf War Veterans payments............ 0 0 0 10 30 40
TVA debt refinancing...................................... 16 13 63 113 101 306
Other outlay provisions 1/............................. -45 -24 0 29 29 -11
Subtotal, outlays.......................................... 121 1,989 -1,037 102 -40 1,135
Change in receipts 2/:
Tax and trade extensions................................ -1,771 -1,089 -409 -299 -196 -3,764
Revenue offsets:
Liquidating dists. of RICs and REITs.......... 2,425 1,109 723 640 672 5,569
Other revenue offsets................................. 27 48 58 70 75 278
Special rule-cash options for qual. prizes....... 170 1,618 -99 -348 -397 944
Tax provisions relating to farmers.................. -73 -66 -62 -76 -72 -349
Other tax provisions........................................ -579 235 -240 -781 -400 -1,765
Subtotal, paygo receipts.......................... 201 1,869 14 -734 -240 1,110
CBO Net PAYGO impact 3/............................... -80 120 -1,051 836 200 25
Memorandum:
Change in off-budget receipts......................... -1 -5 -43 -46 -48 -143
1/ Includes Vaccine Injury compensation, Trade adjustment assistance, Sallie Mae, South Dakota land
transfer, Canyon Ferry Reservoir, San Joaquin Land conveyance, new visa fees and spending.
2/ Receipts reductions are shown as negative.
3/ Additions to the surplus are shown as negative.
Page 39